Summary: Some updates might be safe to uninstall, but doing so makes some risky assumptions. Most programs keep only the patches they need.
Is it safe to uninstall or delete updates to programs after one has installed them? My add/remove is chock full of updates and I'm thinking if they've been installed or superseded by later updates, I should be able to uninstall them.
•
Is it safe? Kinda, sorta, but not really.
Do I think you should do it? Nope.
The updates are there for a reason.
•
I do first have to say that since you mention generic "programs", this answer has to kind of assume the most common case. I'm certain that there are programs out there for which it's perfectly acceptable to uninstall, for example, version 1.2 if you have version 1.3 installed. It's bad programming on that application's part, but it could be quite ok.
I just have no way to know which programs you have that might fall into that bucket.
When updating itself a well behave program will automatically remove any prior updates that are no longer necessary. In other words, they do the work you're asking about already. You'll often see this when installing a new version of a program; it might ask or instruct you to uninstall the old version first. The same is generally true with patches.
Windows itself typically has a long list of patches. When you install a service pack, such as XP's Service Pack 3, you'll see that long list get significantly shorter, since all the patches are "rolled up" into the service pack.
Now, you can uninstall individual patches. The problem is that you are undoing whatever it was the patch fixed. You might be re-introducing a security hole or some other kind of bug or vulnerability.
And sometimes you have to. But not for housekeeping. Occasionally, a patch will have unintended or unexpected side effects, and a temporary resolution might be to uninstall a specific fix.
So my advice is to leave them be. For the most part, the list of patches is there on purpose, and you don't really want to get rid of any of them.
Uncheck the "Show Updates" box at the top of the Add/Remove Window to hide them if they get in your way.
Related:
-
Ask Leo! - How do I get Windows XP SP3 on CD?
-
Ask Leo! - How do I check the version of XP Service Pack 2 installed on my PC?
-
Ask Leo! - Are automatic updates a good thing?
Article C3442 - July 11, 2008
I have a friend actually think the same, he was thought that is no necessary to update windows or install new versions for programs ,and i was try to advise him but with no result , but before a few weeks he faced problems with his computer system and he discovered the problem was from his negligence with updates for his computer system ,at the end he satisfied with important of updates and that it's an important factor for stability and balance system and for programs too.
thank you Leo for the useful article.
Posted by: peter at July 12, 2008 5:44 AMhttp://www.fosdir.com/links
I have noticed the following installed:
Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1
Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 hotfix
Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Service Pack 1(195MB)
Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 Service Pack 1(250MB)
Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 (27.75 MB)
I wonder if the previous versions are necessary...
Posted by: Jay-Jay at July 15, 2008 6:33 PMI want to respond to Jay-Jay. I have a similar question to yours. I actually tried uninstalling the previous versions but the system would not let me. A message would pop up that they are being used by other applications.So perhaps the older versions are still required.
Posted by: Martin at July 16, 2008 2:30 AMThe Sun Java Enviroment is also nortorius for crappy updates. Leaving older version behind. At one time I had 3 different update folders, each with over 100MB of files each. I now uninstall the old before installing any new. If you have more than one, uninstalling the old seems to have no affect on the new.
http://www.geocities.com/terryhollett2003/
Posted by: Terry Hollett at July 16, 2008 1:53 PM.Net 3.0 adds function above & beyond .Net 2.0, and thus still requires it for any application that uses .Net 3.0. .Net 2.0 is not compatible with .Net 1.1, and any application that is using .Net 1.1 still requires it to be present. I don't know what the rules are for .Net 3.5, but I do know that (clearly) all this .Net stuff is pretty much a confusing mess, eh? ;-)
Posted by: Nicholas Gimbrone at July 18, 2008 3:31 PM